Google's Privacy Policy: A Wakeup Call, But That's It

Two Congressional privacy hawks have now taken Google to task for its new, unified privacy policy. And while their protests may be off the mark, their warnings should not go unheeded.

Two Congressional privacy hawks have now taken Google to task for its new, unified privacy policy. And while their protests may be off the mark, their warnings should not go unheeded.

As it stands, Google's unified privacy policy simply takes the status quo and simplifies it. Google has traditionally published individual privacy policies for each of its multitude of sites, which it has consolidated down to a general statement of practices and principles. The bottom line: the new policy doesn't change how Google actually uses the data it collects.

Here's where Google went too far. In a blog post by Alma Whitten, director of privacy, policy and engineering, Whitten starts talking about hypotheticals.

"But there's so much more that Google can do to help you by sharing more of your information with well, you," Whitten wrote. "We can make search betterfiguring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too. For example, it's January, but maybe you're not a gym person, so fitness ads aren't that useful to you. We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day."

That last sentence provoked responses from Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), who serves on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.

"That might seem great to some users, but others might find it intrusive and invasive," Blumenthal wrote in response to the meeting analogy. "Unfortunately, users cannot opt out of this information-sharing. They have no choice."

Markey agreed. "Google's plan to change its privacy policy raises important questions about how much control Google users will have over their personal information," he said in a statement.

They're both right. Google, Facebook, and others are companies that provide free services in exchange for personal information, which provides the foundation for contextual advertising that makes the companies money. As Google builds out its database of information, it can provide more comprehensive services. (Users can "opt out" by logging out of Google while on a PC; it's a different story on a mobile phone, where Android deeply integrates Google's services.)

In general, Google has not broadly shared personal data from one service to the next, with a few exceptions: Google Ads Preferences, for example, allow you to actually set what ads you see across Google's services. (Though by doing so, you're just targeting yourself with focused advertising.) Gmail contacts auto-populate across services. And then there's Search Plus Your World, which has met with mixed reviews.

But just as Google formulates its own internal business strategy to use our information to make money, each user needs to be reminded of the value of their own information, as Markey and Blumenthal have done. In some sense, they're throwing up a roadblock: remember Google's "creepy line"? Here it is, they're saying. Don't cross it.

I'm as sensitive to privacy as anyone; I confess that I'm probably one of the last remaining people on the planet not to have an active account on Facebook, although I'm leaning toward (re)joining soon. For several years, I was turned off by the site's back-and-forth privacy policies. For me, the most compelling reason to "reboot" into Facebook is its Facebook Timeline refresh, which I find elegant and meaningful. The only thing holding me back is that bloody Ticker - I simply don't want to know what hip-hop song my brother-in-law is listening to now. Or now. Or now.

But Facebook has made strides toward mitigating privacy concerns. Google+'s great strength is the levels of privacy its Circles afford, so when Whitten writes about sharing information across Google services without permission, it comes as a bit of a shock.

As services platforms from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others move forward, consumers must continue to stand watch. Google sources tell me that they will not move those services forward without the appropriate user permissions, explicitly allowing what information is used and shared across applications. If so, terrific.

But consumers, lawmakers, and advocates must continue to remain vigilant on the issue of consumer privacy. We must be misers, giving up as little information as possible only to those services we trust. Google's privacy policy isn't a land grab for that information, but if it serves to refocus attention on how Google or one of its rival services could use our information. In that, it's been a useful wakeup call.

Mark Hachman Mark joined ExtremeTech in 2001 as the news editor, after rival CMP/United Media decided at the time that online news did not make sense in the new millennium.
Mark stumbled into his career after discovering that writing the great American novel did not pay a monthly salary, and that his other possible career choice, physics, required a degree of mathematical prowess that he sorely lacked.
Mark talked his way into a freelance assignment at CMP’s Electronic Buyers’ News, in 1995, where he wrote the...
More »